If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I was one of the people who was super depressed when we barely missed out on drummond. Having said that this thread is ridiculous because its preseason. I believed drummond and lilliard would be better than rivers (hence he fell to us and they didn't). Rivers has plenty flaws, but he does do plenty things well. If we are patient with him he should grow into a good player. Now good day.

"Experts" are often wrong as well as us fans, but it was obvious that Davis was the best player in the draft. The only question "experts" asked was will he develop into a superstar or just a really good player. Even if he doesn't reach superstar status his physical skills would still make him better than the rest of the draft class. I think he will develop into a superstar eventually, but only time will tell. I can't remember seeing any "expert" having anyone but Davis ranked #1 on their boards. Can you point out any "experts" that didn't have Davis ranked #1?

You are missing the point by a mile. We don't know where Davis will be ranked in this draft class. Everybody thought John Wall was a can't miss prospect and now only after 2 years many are second guessing themselves. So you can't say Davis is the best player in the class simply because we don't know. If you want to say he's the best prospect that's completely different, but just like I said projections are way off enough not to crown players before they are even a min into the part of the season where teams care if they win or lose.

How about we just see the good right now? Instead of looking for the bad, see what's good and truly there. Instead of worrying about potential, how about what we got right now because we really don't know nor control the future. Let what we see now, guide us into the future. *The wuggie has spoken* lol

I can give you the Rivers is two years younger than Lillard spiel, or he has "pedigree argument." I can give you the Rivers is a hungry, hardworking player who has been around the game his entire life. I can give you that Rivers is the best pure scorer to come out this draft, and his first step is elite.

But I won't. We didn't have the chance to draft either of these players. There is absolutely no reason to look back at "what couldn't have been".

Is Lillard better than Rivers right now? Yes. Is it fair to say that the gap between these two won't decrease? Hell no. You can't judge a draft class before a regular season game has yet to be played. Be patient with Rivers, and relish at the thought that Davis is going to rock a teal jersey for the next six years.

We have 1-2 more years of playing mediocre basketball. I, for one, will look back and laugh at all these negative and purely speculative threads. And, of course, I will continue to roll my eyes at every single DaThrone post and not give them a second of my time and day.

In regards to Drummond, he is an athletic freak. We all knew that; it shouldn't be surprising that he is putting up good numbers against lackluster, preseason talent. He is just as raw as Austin, though, and the smarter Detroit fans will soon enough be preaching patience to their fellow fans just as the smarter Hornets fans are preaching patience to their fellow fans today. I am not saying that it is a given Rivers will become an elite PG. What I am saying is that you can't make that call today. Nobody can. And shame on you for trying :P

We have a great, young core right now. Let's enjoy watching them grow. The rest will take care of itself.

Last edited by PelsFan2313; 10-15-2012 at 02:01 PM.

"I'm not going to allow my putative owner to answer that question, this is an NBA related press conference. Paul Tagliabue and Roger Goodell have collectively sung their praises of Tom and if uh ESPN has a problem with that tell Mr. Skipper to call me at my office."

I can give you the Rivers is two years younger than Lillard spiel, or he has "pedigree argument." I can give you the Rivers is a hungry, hardworking player who has been around the game his entire life. I can give you that Rivers is the best pure scorer to come out this draft, and his first step is elite.

But I won't. We didn't have the chance to draft either of these players. There is absolutely no reason to look back at "what couldn't have been".

Is Lillard better than Rivers right now? Yes. Is it fair to say that the gap between these two won't decrease? Hell no. You can't judge a draft class before a regular season game has yet to be played. Be patient with Rivers, and relish at the thought that Davis is going to rock a teal jersey for the next six years.

We have 1-2 more years of playing mediocre basketball. I, for one, will look back and laugh at all these negative and purely speculative threads. And, of course, I will continue to roll my eyes at every single DaThrone post and not give them a second of my time and day.

In regards to Drummond, he is an athletic freak. We all knew that; it shouldn't be surprising that he is putting up good numbers against lackluster, preseason talent. He is just as raw as Austin, though, and the smarter Detroit fans will soon enough be preaching patience to their fellow fans just as the smarter Hornets fans are preaching patience to their fellow fans today. I am not saying that it is a given Rivers will become an elite PG. What I am saying is that you can't make that call today. Nobody can. And shame on you for trying :P

We have a great, young core right now. Let's enjoy watching them grow. The rest will take care of itself.

.

I find it insanely ironic that you condemn my post in here then proceed to make the almost the same points I made

I find it insanely ironic that you condemn my post in here then proceed to make the almost the same points I made

I think every single Hornets fan knows you are skeptical about Davis' potential. Your point has been made. Over and over again. It has been dully noted, now move on. It was fine at first. Give it time before crowning him the franchise player. That makes complete sense. But the degree to which you have pounded this point has given off the impression that you don't think he is going to pan out at all. Obviously this doesn't make any sense because it contradicts the original point you've been trying to make. Your like the boy who cried wolf. There was a general acknowledgment/acceptance of your point, despite it being against the norm. Now, it is just completely disregarded due to your repetitive tendencies. Repeating the same things all the time doesn't make you more credible or more likable. It simply makes you more annoying. Just keep that in mind the next time you decide to spam the same counterargument(s) over and over again. This thread is a good example of that.

I for one don't mind Throne's consistent repeat...repudiations of Davis's skills and potential.

It's cool for guys and gals like me (the guy part, I mean) to sing Davis' praises without problem. Why should anything to the opposite side be denied? Gotta keep the conversation flowing. It's boring if it's all onesided. It's not like he's being clearly inflammatory.

It's like to argue the same point over and over again makes no sense. If no one agrees with you so be it, you can control what everyone thinks. Are you doing this for the single reason if somehow Davis sucks, just to be right and call everyone else wrong down the line? Hell you can wait for that to "potentially" happen instead of reminding us of what could be everytime you get a chance. To down that we are going on what potentially happen might is hypocritical because you do the same thing with Drummond. How about you wait before you say Drummond is better than Davis or that Davis is not that good as we think?

I think every single Hornets fan knows you are skeptical about Davis' potential. Your point has been made. Over and over again. It has been dully noted, now move on. It was fine at first. Give it time before crowning him the franchise player. That makes complete sense. But the degree to which you have pounded this point has given off the impression that you don't think he is going to pan out at all. Obviously this doesn't make any sense because it contradicts the original point you've been trying to make. Your like the boy who cried wolf. There was a general acknowledgment/acceptance of your point, despite it being against the norm. Now, it is just completely disregarded due to your repetitive tendencies. Repeating the same things all the time doesn't make you more credible or more likable. It simply makes you more annoying. Just keep that in mind the next time you decide to spam the same counterargument(s) over and over again. This thread is a good example of that.

No offense, but this is about as bias of a position as possible.

So if like you guys I was to repeat how great Davis is/will be that's prefectly fine and doesn't make me any less reputable. However being at the other end of the specturm that makes everything completey different? Note I didn't even bring Davis up just responding to some one else, and didn't say anything negative at all about Davis in the post to boot.

I for one don't mind Throne's consistent repeat...repudiations of Davis's skills and potential.

It's cool for guys and gals like me (the guy part, I mean) to sing Davis' praises without problem. Why should anything to the opposite side be denied? Gotta keep the conversation flowing. It's boring if it's all onesided. It's not like he's being clearly inflammatory.

His consistent repeat doesn't keep the conversation flowing in a productive manner. Proponents of Davis say hes the greatest thing since sliced bread, he says Davis is not. Proponents ask why, he says because he hasn't proved anything. Then, the conversation recycles/starts over again. There's a difference between contributing positively and negatively to a debate; repetition tends to contribute negatively. It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and so, participants do not benefit in any way. I'd rather positive repetitive banter that at least has several accredited sources backing that point of view up, rather than one negative repetitive "counterargument" which contributes nothing but irritating noise, and has next to zero evidence to suggest any legitimacy.

Regardless, I'm done addressing this. My point has been made, and I am sure DaThrone's one point will be made several more times. More power to him, I guess .

So if like you guys I was to repeat how great Davis is/will be that's prefectly fine and doesn't make me any less reputable. However being at the other end of the specturm that makes everything completey different? Note I didn't even bring Davis up just responding to some one else, and didn't say anything negative at all about Davis in the post to boot.

Instead of blah, blah just wait to see if your right or wait to see if were right since you think that's what we should do. Since we shouldn't make judgement until some stats how about you don't either about us being wrong?

His consistent repeat doesn't keep the conversation flowing in a productive manner. Proponents of Davis say hes the greatest thing since sliced bread, he says Davis is not. Proponents ask why, he says because he hasn't proved anything. Then, the conversation recycles/starts over again. There's a difference between contributing positively and negatively to a debate; repetition tends to contribute negatively. It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and so, participants do not benefit in any way. I'd rather positive repetitive banter that at least has several accredited sources backing that point of view up, rather than one negative repetitive "counterargument" which contributes nothing but irritating noise, and has next to zero evidence to suggest any legitimacy.

Regardless, I'm done addressing this. My point has been made, and I am sure DaThrone's one point will be made several more times. More power to him, I guess .

This is false I have on mutliple occassion express exactly why I think Davis isn't great.

We can't have a legit discussion if you can't even be accurate with your complaints. Once again wasn't even the one to bring Davis into the discussion.

Who is everybody? Is it the same everybody's who thought Micheal Beasley was better than Kevin Love and Russell Westbrook?

Nobody knows anything for sure that in itself makes anybody who says differently look very ignorant. It's all about projections. And as i can go down the list and show you how often the "experts are dead wrong.

My premise has nothing to do with my predictions or where I ranked this draft. My point is you can't preach patience and/or the irrelevance of the preseason then talk about Davis like he's a proven player.

The thing is, when there is a consensus pick, experts are rarely wrong. Beasley was not a consensus pick. Now, in the Wall draft there may have been a slip up, but the talent in that class was filled with project players. Virtually nobody was deemed NBA ready than Wall. A lot of talent has arisen though. I think most people's problem with your posts is that you totally disregard our reasoning and use your own, when both sides hold as much water as the other.

The thing is, when there is a consensus pick, experts are rarely wrong. Beasley was not a consensus pick. Now, in the Wall draft there may have been a slip up, but the talent in that class was filled with project players. Virtually nobody was deemed NBA ready than Wall. A lot of talent has arisen though. I think most people's problem with your posts is that you totally disregard our reasoning and use your own, when both sides hold as much water as the other.

I clearly don't feel like I'm ignoring anybodies reasoning I just disagree. I don't think he's a great ball handler, post option, and I don't think he's a good post defender those are my knocks and it's those things that will prevent him from having a Duncan or Garnett type career. If you think he has all those things I respectfully disagree.

However that wasn't even what my post said in this thread. I was just asking some here to use the same logic of not going over board about the preseason one way or the other when it doesn't suit their opinions.

I don't get the arguement? Despite the whole point you can't judge a rookie for a few years as everyone develops at a different pace, both these players were selected above us.

The opening poster argues we could have traded up easy, who says we could have? Lots of teams wanted to try trade up (rumoured Boston, Dallas and Houston) and didn't manage to get in the top 10, so its not as easy as it is to write.

I would understand your point slightly more if you were going on about rookies selected after the 10th pick but even then its too early to digest things.

Yes you are making conclusions. Calling a rookie insurance imply that he's a sure thing. That the basic concept of insurance.

I'm not trying to bust your chops. Just feel it's unfair to have a bunch of sarcastic comments or gif about the OP(original poster) making premature comments based on preseason then allow you to do the same thing. I get what you're trying to say just felt the need to point out something I thought was incorrect.